EPTAnd to my fellow countrymen who want to move, so you give up that easily, and where do you want to move to? Maybe I can't fix the infrastructure, but I sure as hell can try to do something about it.
The US debt (proper debate) - Page 51
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Reaper9
United States1724 Posts
And to my fellow countrymen who want to move, so you give up that easily, and where do you want to move to? Maybe I can't fix the infrastructure, but I sure as hell can try to do something about it. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote: Refer to my very first post. Indeed, certain programs require reform. That said, these services cannot be done away with completely - go ahead and attempt to explain to me why medicare or individual mandate should be done away with completely. As stands, NO FOCUS is being paid to taxes. Do you simply think that the majority of the United States is stupider than you, a strong conservative? Snap out of it. Don't you read the news? Don't you look at polls? Tax reform is not part of today's compromise, and many would have liked to see it. It is necessary. Pretending it's all about services and "welfare" is, well, sorry, RETARDED. And no, your WSJ OPINION article does not change the fact. And no, your explanation above does not absolve you of making a stupid comment to me about retirement and SS. Keep on fighting the good fight Marigold, this Rybka guy has clearly made his mind, regardless of how obvious the information is in front of him. Huge numbers of people in the US cost the government billions upon billions of dollars in uninsured hospital visits that simply cannot be paid, and this with the already overburdened Medicare and Medicaid systems in place. The conservative answer? Slash funding to the already struggling Medicare/Medicaid and totally ignore the ramifications, which would no doubt include an incredible surge in uncovered medical costs and emergency room visits. The fact that Republicans are able to blame the poor for our economic situation is positively astounding, although I can see how things are made easier when one stereotypes all recipients of government programs as lazy minorities. Nice cartoon above, might wanna add that the total worth of the 47% of Americans who avoid paying federal income tax accounts for a.....wait for it.........whopping 2.99% of of the deficit. Even if you taxed the hell out of this already struggling group the difference would amount to a tiny drop of water in the pool that is the current deficit. lol? | ||
|
poor newb
United States1879 Posts
On August 03 2011 07:10 VIB wrote: Just saw on CNN what is the approve rate by americans for how well these guys handled the crisis. It was something like: Obama: 45% Dems: 35% Reps: 30% Rofl, talk about shooting your own foot  american voters have very short term memories, by election time the republicans will get it back easily, the democrats? lol not a chance | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote: Refer to my very first post. Indeed, certain programs require reform. That said, these services cannot be done away with completely - go ahead and attempt to explain to me why medicare or individual mandate should be done away with completely. No one is advocating the elimination of medicare, medicaid, or other social welfare programs. However, anyone with a brain and a rudimentary knowledge of the current federal budget knows that these programs must receive cuts. Social security (19.63%), Defense (18.74%), Unemployment/welfare (16.13%), Medicare (12.79%), and Medicaid (8.19%) make up about 75% of all federal government spending. Because our current annual deficits are so big (40%), signifcant cuts obviously will have to be made to these programs. On August 03 2011 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote: As stands, NO FOCUS is being paid to taxes. No one is focusing on taxes because taxes won't even come close to fixing the problem. We have $15+ trillion in debt, we're running $1.4 trillion annual deficits, and our total GDP is $14-15 trillion per year. The economy simply can't bear the tax hikes that are needed to close the budget deficit gap. We'd have to increase taxes on the entire economy by more than 10% (more than 10% because taxation will lower economic output and the tax base), which would be catastrophic. Sure, taxes will probably raised a little bit, but most of the budget balancing necessarily has to come from spending cuts. On August 03 2011 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote: Do you simply think that the majority of the United States is stupider than you, a strong conservative? Snap out of it. Don't you read the news? Don't you look at polls? Tax reform is not part of today's compromise, and many would have liked to see it. It is necessary. Pretending it's all about services and "welfare" is, well, sorry, RETARDED. And no, your WSJ OPINION article does not change the fact. And no, your explanation above does not absolve you of making a stupid comment to me about retirement and SS. The problem is that most Americans are completely ignorant of the facts that I laid out above. Apparently you are, too. | ||
|
Trajan98
Canada203 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:21 AcuWill wrote: ![[image loading]](http://www.caseyresearch.com/gsd/sites/default/files/resize/Tax%20Burden-470x354.jpg) I love how the conservatives always say that 50% of Americans pay no taxes. That is simply not true because that supposed 50% of non tax payers, has tax on their payroll cheques. Even if you work at Mcdonalds you will be paying some tax on your payroll. If you tell the same lies over and over some people will start to believe them. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:45 Trajan98 wrote: I love how the conservatives always say that 50% of Americans pay no taxes. That is simply not true because that supposed 50% of non tax payers, has tax on their payroll cheques. Even if you work at Mcdonalds you will be paying some tax on your payroll. If you tell the same lies over and over some people will start to believe them. Ever hear of tax refunds? C'mon man.... | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:38 xDaunt wrote: And you think simply doing away something like Medicare based off GDP percentage is legitimate? That's so simple-minded. There are severe ramifications for doing away with Medicare and similar programs that extend beyond the simple pie-chart numbers. Think insurance, and who pays for uninsured, as one example. With regard to tax: You're cutely toying with the fact. You're right - no one is paying attention to it TODAY, per the current "compromise". Fact of the matter is, the MAJORITY of Americans support its attention. Republicans, by and large, simply would not come to any form of agreement had tax increases been left on the bargaining table. Ironically it was the dems that ended up sucking it up for the American people. I sound funny to myself saying this, because I'm not even a democrat! In this issue, it really is plain to see who is being MORE obdurate, and who is being greedier here. America's richest households have enjoyed quite a ride in recent decades as they've accumulated a mountain of wealth unprecedented in human history, at a time when much of the rest of society has been suffering. The average income tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined from 34.5% in 1980 to just 23.27% in 2008. During this period, the share of total income accruing to the richest 1% has soared from 8.5% in 1980 to 20% in 2008. The share of total AGI accruing to the top 10% of taxpayers has similarly risen from 32% in 1980 to 46% of income in 2008. Considering this 10% accounts for 46% of reported income in the United States, these number ARE significant. Raising taxes IS a fundamental part of the answer. You are utterly insane or a rabid, unyielding conservative fanboy if you argue with that point - I'm sorry to say so bluntly. | ||
|
Trajan98
Canada203 Posts
Getting a tax refund means that you still paid a tax. cmon man.... | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
Lets step back a second. Everyone should calm down. Now go back to my previous post on one of my hero's Coburn. This man spells it out best. Do we need to reform those entitlement programs..YES. Yes we do. They just cost to much as they are. Obama has stated this many times. We do need to reform them. He took the heat for that one. His grand bargain called for reforms for these entitelments programs. Now, all he asked for was not even new taxes, but closing of loop holes in the tax code that would bring in new revenue. GOP opposed it. Now Obama moved to the center and called for reform, GOP would not meet him there. Now lets forget about GOP, Democrat and all that stuff. Just objectively look at this and tell me...who is right? Who is trying to do the right thing? Coburn publishes a book called Back in Black. The first ever auditing of the entire US government. Now keep in mind the US government is wasteful, too big and full of redudancies. His book would would save 9 trillion dollars over a decade. What did the GOP call it. A 1 trillion dollar tax hike. Completely forgetting that it cut 8 trillion in debt. @SnK-Arcbound I noticed your last statement. You didn't really answer my question. This is not about the GOP or Dem this is about right and wrong. You say that me asking the GOP to raise taxes is unrealistic. When did expecting our politicians to work together and do the right thing become unrealistic. If we are so far gone that we cannot even sacrifice a little of our ideological pure positions than we are screwed. You also did not respond on whether holding our economy hostage was acceptable. I do not. This is not a GOP or Dem issue. It is an American issue. We need to get our deficit under control. That means cutting spending as well as increasing taxes on the top 1% that owns so much of the economy. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:58 cfoy3 wrote: @ xDaunt Lets step back a second. Everyone should calm down. Now go back to my previous post on one of my hero's Coburn. This man spells it out best. Do we need to reform those entitlement programs..YES. Yes we do. They just cost to much as they are. Obama has stated this many times. We do need to reform them. He took the heat for that one. His grand bargain called for reforms for these entitelments programs. Now, all he asked for was not even new taxes, but closing of loop holes in the tax code that would bring in new revenue. GOP opposed it. Now Obama moved to the center and called for reform, GOP would not meet him there. Now lets forget about GOP, Democrat and all that stuff. Just objectively look at this and tell me...who is right? Who is trying to do the right thing? Coburn publishes a book called Back in Black. The first ever auditing of the entire US government. Now keep in mind the US government is wasteful, too big and full of redudancies. His book would would save 9 trillion dollars over a decade. What did the GOP call it. A 1 trillion dollar tax hike. Completely forgetting that it cut 8 trillion in debt. @SnK-Arcbound I noticed your last statement. You didn't really answer my question. This is not about the GOP or Dem this is about right and wrong. You say that me asking the GOP to raise taxes is unrealistic. When did expecting our politicians to work together and do the right thing become unrealistic. If we are so far gone that we cannot even sacrifice a little of our ideological pure positions than we are screwed. You also did not respond on whether holding our economy hostage was acceptable. I do not. This is not a GOP or Dem issue. It is an American issue. We need to get our deficit under control. That means cutting spending as well as increasing taxes on the top 1% that owns so much of the economy. Spot on. This is not about bipartisanship. This is about SUCKING IT THE FUCK UP AND DOING WHAT IS LOGICALLY CORRECT AND NECESSARY. BOTH SIDES. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:50 FallDownMarigold wrote: And you think simply doing away something like Medicare based off GDP percentage is legitimate? That's so simple-minded. There are severe ramifications for doing away with Medicare and similar programs that extend beyond the simple pie-chart numbers. Think insurance, and who pays for uninsured, as one example. Umm, you may want to go revisit sixth grade math. I showed that FIVE programs constitute 75% of all government spending and I showed that we're running 40% budget deficits. The obvious implication is that you could eliminate every other spending item in the federal government (25%) and still not balance the budget. The blindingly obvious conclusion? Those programs will have to be cut to some extent. It's really that simple. As for this "doing away with Medicare" business, go re-read my post again. I said "no one is adovcating" eliminating Medicare. On August 03 2011 11:50 FallDownMarigold wrote: With regard to tax: You're cutely toying with the fact. You're right - no one is paying attention to it TODAY, per the current "compromise". Fact of the matter is, the MAJORITY of Americans support its attention. Republicans, by and large, simply would not come to any form of agreement had tax increases been left on the bargaining table. Ironically it was the dems that ended up sucking it up for the American people. I sound funny to myself saying this, because I'm not even a democrat! In this issue, it really is plain to see who is being MORE obdurate, and who is being greedier here. America's richest households have enjoyed quite a ride in recent decades as they've accumulated a mountain of wealth unprecedented in human history, at a time when much of the rest of society has been suffering. The average income tax rate paid by the top 1% has declined from 34.5% in 1980 to just 23.27% in 2008. During this period, the share of total income accruing to the richest 1% has soared from 8.5% in 1980 to 20% in 2008. The share of total AGI accruing to the top 10% of taxpayers has similarly risen from 32% in 1980 to 46% of income in 2008. Considering this 10% accounts for 46% of reported income in the United States, these number ARE significant. Raising taxes IS a fundamental part of the answer. Again, you totally missed point that I was making: tax increases won't come close to closing the budget deficit because of the size of the deficit. I'm not sure whether you have noticed, but we're on the brink of entering a new recession. No economist in their right mind would advocate raising taxes by the amount needed significantly cut into the budget deficit. Let me redirect your attention to the numbers: $14-15 trillion GDP, $15 trillion debt, $1.4 trillion annual deficits. You could raise taxes by $1 trillion annually and you still wouldn't come close to fixing the problem. There will have to be significant spending cuts, especially to entitlement programs, which also happen to be the fast growing sectors of federal spending. On August 03 2011 11:50 FallDownMarigold wrote: You are utterly insane or a rabid, unyielding conservative fanboy if you argue with that point - I'm sorry to say so bluntly. This is an amusing way to end your post, which basically dodges the key points that I raised. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:57 Trajan98 wrote: Getting a tax refund means that you still paid a tax. cmon man.... Please, just stop posting when you don't even know how it works. Yes, taxes are taken out of their paychecks. However, the ENTIRE AMOUNT (and sometimes more) is then refunded to them. 50% of Americans not paying federal income taxes isn't some number that conservatives made up. It's something reported by the federal government annually. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On August 03 2011 12:07 xDaunt wrote: This is an amusing way to end your post, which basically dodges the key points that I raised. How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? Because, like many Americans, I've had it with your type. You logic is redundant, and pointless to debate. Your "numbers" are meaningless in the context of my point. Just as you are claiming I am arguing against REMOVING these programs completely, you are arguing against tax increases, period. There IS a necessity for tax reform - as there is a necessity for reform in these programs. Did YOU not read MY original post? Flip back 1 or 2 pages. Edit: Did it for you On August 03 2011 10:32 FallDownMarigold wrote: I agree that "services" must also be cut to some extent given the size of the problem On August 03 2011 11:13 FallDownMarigold wrote: Indeed, certain programs require reform. That said, these services cannot be done away with completely - go ahead and attempt to explain to me why medicare or individual mandate should be done away with completely. As stands, NO FOCUS is being paid to taxes. Tax reform is not part of today's compromise [yet it is a crucial part of the best solution]. Regarding your thought that tax reform has no place in today's issue (the very point that makes you in direct disagreement with the vast majority of Americans - and pointedly on the side of bipartisan nonsense in favor of hardcore conservatives): The money received by the richest households is vast, and higher taxes on the rich will make a major contribution to closing the deficit. Nobody says that the rich should carry the entire tax burden or that spending cuts shouldn't play a role. The waste in military spending alone is so large that we can and should save at least 2 percent of GDP per year from the defense budget alone. -I already pointed that out | ||
|
Trajan98
Canada203 Posts
On August 03 2011 12:09 xDaunt wrote: Please, just stop posting when you don't even know how it works. Yes, taxes are taken out of their paychecks. However, the ENTIRE AMOUNT (and sometimes more) is then refunded to them. 50% of Americans not paying federal income taxes isn't some number that conservatives made up. It's something reported by the federal government annually. Even if they get all of their payroll taxes returned (which doesn't seem accurate) remember that most of these people will be subject to excise taxes, sales taxes, state income taxes, and property taxes. Most people who don't pay federal income taxes still encounter some of these other taxes. | ||
|
GMonster
686 Posts
Bottomline at this point, the debt won't vanish overnight. Will probably take 4-8 more years of a good president, 10-15 if a bad one is mixxed in there. | ||
|
Mykill
Canada3402 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:30 FallDownMarigold wrote: ..? Not sure if serious. To highlight one small example of many; if poor people end up in the emergency room and can't foot the bill, YOUR PREMIUMS GO UP. ADVERSE SELECTION: IT'S REAL. DEATH-SPIRAL: IT'S REAL. Then it comes down to if the everybody pitches in enough taxes to cover the bill... Either everybody pays a bit more taxes and everybody gets healthcare (like Canada) OR get insurance. if you don't have enough government revenue to cover these programs then you get debt, simple. | ||
|
stanik
Canada213 Posts
On August 03 2011 11:45 Trajan98 wrote: I love how the conservatives always say that 50% of Americans pay no taxes. That is simply not true because that supposed 50% of non tax payers, has tax on their payroll cheques. Even if you work at Mcdonalds you will be paying some tax on your payroll. If you tell the same lies over and over some people will start to believe them. My hand didn't rest on the half and half argument. I am Canadian and the main reason why I have any interest in this is because an Obama speech interrupted an episode of Hell's kitchen. In his sermon Obama was explaining that there were two sides on to how the current debt situation would be handled. Democratic party desire: Tax the upper 2% (unclear on actual figures) appropriately. He used an analogy that I recall as a Janitor pays more taxes than someone on Wall Street. OR Republic party desire: Continue and follow procedure. Raise the debt ceiling and problem solved. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On August 03 2011 12:19 FallDownMarigold wrote: Because, like many Americans, I've had it with your type. You logic is redundant, and pointless to debate. Your "numbers" are meaningless in the context of my point. Just as you are claiming I am arguing against REMOVING these programs completely, you are arguing against tax increases, period. There IS a necessity for tax reform - as there is a necessity for reform in these programs. Did YOU not read MY original post? Flip back 1 or 2 pages. This may be the funniest thing that I've ever seen argued in a debate about the federal deficit and federal budget: the numbers are "meaningless." I may only be a lawyer -- a profession notorious for being bad at math --- but even I know that "budgeting" is fundamentally a mathematical exercise. Typically math involves numbers. Also, I haven't argued that taxes shouldn't be raised. In fact, I've said the contrary many times in this thread. My point is only that taxes cannot fix the problem. Spending cuts will necessarily be the primary solution for the budgetary -- or mathematical -- reasons that I set forth above. | ||
|
greatchi
Taiwan11 Posts
the stock market is still falling even AFTER they passed the debt ceiling bill (due to Moody's, Fitch, etc.'s relative unease still) showing just how serious this situation is. So it doesn't matter which plan passes - Democratic or Republic - People are still really worried about the condition of the country. (Especially considering the high chance of downgrading from triple A) | ||
|
cfoy3
United States129 Posts
You know what else economist's caution against? Drastically cutting government spending. Look of course we are not going to get out of this by simply taxing the rich. No one here is saying that. We do need entitlement reform, however can you really say that the rich shouldn't contribute? Further, the thing about tax cuts for cooperations and the rich is that while yes they may have more money. They are under no obligation to spend that money or even to reinvest it back into the US. Their is absolutely no constraints on that. Remember cooperations do not care about you. They care about only more profit. Just look at the airline industries. Taxes were reduced. GOP ideology states that passenger tickets should decrease. But that isn't what happened. The airlines just pocketed the money. All that really happened is that the government got a less money (money that could be used to pay down the debt),and a whole bunch of construction workers and air traffic controllers may lose their jobs. This is a clear falsification to this line of logic and a debunking of GOP theory. I am eager to hear your rebuttals. | ||
| ||
